The Concorde was the most beautiful, technologically suburb jet ever to transport passengers in the world. It was the first, last, and only supersonic passenger jet. It topped out at Mach 2.02-2.4, which is about 1,334-1,841.45 miles per hour. It could fly from London to New York in a little over three hours.

The next fastest consumer jet is the Cessna Citation X, which flies at 700 miles per hour (just below the sound barrier). An Airbus A380 maxes out at 670 or so miles per hour. A Boeing 787 flies at about 615 miles per hour.

The differences between the Concorde and a Boeing 787, for example, are mainly in the engines and the design; the former more or less having the engines of fighter jets, whereas the latter's engines are (incredibly sophisticated) standard consumer jet turbines.

The Tupolev Tu-144 was an impressive piece of technology designed by the Soviets to rival the Concorde, but it is widely recognized as a failure because of it's inferior safety record. It couldn't even be certified to transport cargo in the end. The Concorde, in the alternative, had 27 years of perfect service. Some sources say the Tupolev could go faster than the Concorde, but even if that was the case --and sources vary-- the Concorde was the only supersonic passenger jet ever fit for that purpose. The Tupolev was a supersonic aluminum casket.

I never flew on the Concorde, but I would have given almost anything for the chance.

Back in the 1980s (before it was clear that federal aviation regulations would never permit sonic booms in American airspace for consumer air travel), Lockheed, Boeing, and McDonnell (to a lesser degree) at least talked like they were serious about bringing supersonic flight to the consumer industry, but the FAA's regulations, and federal regulations not allowing the occurrence of sonic booms over land prevented it from ever happening.

Everyone in the industry now says that it's not economical to make supersonic passenger jets, and the only reason that's the case is because they can't fly over land because of regulations. Now, no company will build another supersonic jet unless it can fly over land. So, the challenge has (and Lockheed may well be on the way to achieving this) been to create a supersonic jet that did not make the noise that the Concorde did.

What I wish is that the regulations would be changed, so that supersonic jets could be built and used to transport customers. But I doubt it will happen any time soon.

At 10/12/2015 3:09:35 AM, YYW wrote:What I wish is that the regulations would be changed, so that supersonic jets could be built and used to transport customers. But I doubt it will happen any time soon.

I don't. Sonic booms over my house? No thanks. Those regulations are there for a reason.

At 10/12/2015 3:09:35 AM, YYW wrote:What I wish is that the regulations would be changed, so that supersonic jets could be built and used to transport customers. But I doubt it will happen any time soon.

I don't. Sonic booms over my house? No thanks. Those regulations are there for a reason.

At 10/12/2015 3:09:35 AM, YYW wrote:What I wish is that the regulations would be changed, so that supersonic jets could be built and used to transport customers. But I doubt it will happen any time soon.

I don't. Sonic booms over my house? No thanks. Those regulations are there for a reason.

Out of curiosity, did you live near Heathrow before 2003? I know the Concorde was loud... I'm just curious if you were in its flight path.

At 10/12/2015 3:09:35 AM, YYW wrote:The Concorde was the most beautiful, technologically suburb jet ever to transport passengers in the world. It was the first, last, and only supersonic passenger jet. It topped out at Mach 2.02-2.4, which is about 1,334-1,841.45 miles per hour. It could fly from London to New York in a little over three hours.

It was. It was an extraordinary plane in many respects. The loss is... well its a loss for general avionics. Its like not having a US shuttle, or ANY ability to anything close to what we did in 1969. We go backwards, and the public yawns.

The next fastest consumer jet is the Cessna Citation X, which flies at 700 miles per hour (just below the sound barrier). An Airbus A380 maxes out at 670 or so miles per hour. A Boeing 787 flies at about 615 miles per hour.

Now.... For pure joy. The Citation X is just bad as he11.

The differences between the Concorde and a Boeing 787, for example, are mainly in the engines and the design; the former more or less having the engines of fighter jets, whereas the latter's engines are (incredibly sophisticated) standard consumer jet turbines.

The Tupolev Tu-144 was an impressive piece of technology designed by the Soviets to rival the Concorde, but it is widely recognized as a failure because of it's inferior safety record. It couldn't even be certified to transport cargo in the end. The Concorde, in the alternative, had 27 years of perfect service. Some sources say the Tupolev could go faster than the Concorde, but even if that was the case --and sources vary-- the Concorde was the only supersonic passenger jet ever fit for that purpose. The Tupolev was a supersonic aluminum casket.

Yea, no it wasn't impressive as much other than bits of smoldering wreckage.

I never flew on the Concorde, but I would have given almost anything for the chance.

I wished I could. My father (an amateur pilot) did a couple times. We talked about this plane often. Geeky as he was, this was a highlight for him. The one and only point of "problem" he ever mentioned was that it came in very "hot". It landed at terrifying speeds.

Back in the 1980s (before it was clear that federal aviation regulations would never permit sonic booms in American airspace for consumer air travel), Lockheed, Boeing, and McDonnell (to a lesser degree) at least talked like they were serious about bringing supersonic flight to the consumer industry, but the FAA's regulations, and federal regulations not allowing the occurrence of sonic booms over land prevented it from ever happening.

Sonic booms suck for people anywhere near them. This, unfortunately, is sensible.

Everyone in the industry now says that it's not economical to make supersonic passenger jets, and the only reason that's the case is because they can't fly over land because of regulations. Now, no company will build another supersonic jet unless it can fly over land. So, the challenge has (and Lockheed may well be on the way to achieving this) been to create a supersonic jet that did not make the noise that the Concorde did.

What I wish is that the regulations would be changed, so that supersonic jets could be built and used to transport customers. But I doubt it will happen any time soon.

I had read something about this concept. I think it is some voo-doo, but if they can make it work...

Just to add a bit of trivia to this. We, my father and I, were talking about it when I was... I don't know, youngish. I asked him why the nose had to do its pointing thing. Again, my father was a big nerd, so true to form, it turned into a very long lesson with diagrams, and sh1t, followed by a flight later where he showed me how to "flare" the plane on landing.

So. Why? Well, delta winged aircraft have NO FLAPS. Yup! So, when you are landing a delta wing craft, where you would employ flaps (reduce stall speed, increase lift, nose down) you can't. You must put the plane in a pitched attitude (lower the nosecone so you can see) in effect you are in the flare the entire way down! So... Concorde did a sort of stall landing (very fast ~180mph).